Question 1 (Heather)

Anand poses three actions that individuals can take to adopt an intrapreneural mindset and drive proactive change:  1) being aware of the current state of business within the company, 2) critiquing the products and services and 3) re-imagining change (2019, pg. 72-73).  To be aware of the business, products and services, a coworker needs to possess a well-rounded understanding of the entire organization, departments and processes.  This may be easier to do in a smaller business than a large corporation like Microsoft but then again, if each and every coworker does not understand these three things, then that is a result of poor leadership.  Certain functions in an organization would have a different lens – let’s say, a financial analyst compared to a product manager.  The analyst understand the payroll tools, how the company maintains financial records and probably a high level understanding of the company’s quarterly and annual performance. But the analyst generally would have little understanding of the drivers and drags that make up the performance, or what customers are going through in the market that affects the buying cycle.  The product manager may have a detailed view of the customer, the buying cycle, supply chain and other things that affect the company’s quota but will likely not understand that the company’s outdated payroll system frustrates millennial coworkers who are used to something faster and more updated, which could affect retention and employee satisfaction.  Throw in other roles like an engineer, a marketing manager and a salesperson and you definitely get different perspectives on the business but chances are neither would possess a holistic one to see the full scope of the company.  From there I would argue that 1) to drive meaningful change, a coworker needs to be engaged and interested in as many areas of the business as possible so they can see the bigger picture but 2) every role can drive high impact by adopting a change mindset.  The analyst can still sit back and question how the outdated systems affect the department and coworkers as well as take the time to reach out to the product manager and understand what affected the company revenue.  While it would require a significant amount of information gathering, it also requires an interested and questioning mindset for the coworker to stand out and drive change.  It is the responsibility and duty of the leader and team to understand how a change affects others in the organization, and any individual can take the time to reflect and ask questions to get those answers.

In general, the model is sound. All 7 principles must be top of mind for the leaders of an organization and too often we see that this is not the case.  Leaders make assumptions that coworkers understand their role and tasks and failure is not always embraced in terms of experimentation because speed and time is “of the essence.”  I look at Kotter’s 8 step change model as a mentality that coworkers need to adopt within the 7 principles but for the two to coexist, the organization needs to be quite nimble.  I could see the two working side by side well for a medium sized or small organization but in a large organization like CDW, where the company is struggling to find its North Star (example of a company that can do everything but isn’t known for 1 or 2 things), change is slow and there are many dependencies. 

I find this article has a great path for an individual to have a proactive and realistic approach to driving change in terms of what is in and outside of one's control:  


QUESTION 2 (Joseph)

As a business exists to serve a purpose in society to supply a good or service, they must constantly be in demand for them to remain. Adaptation theory is rooted on these businesses being able to predict trends and changes in consumer behaviors, responding in with their own changes (Anand, 2019). One key principle for this theory to take affect is self-awareness and understanding the current state of the business. This includes the interactions between the customers as well as competition. This information can be gathered from different tastemakers or engagement surveys. However, there must be a strong affinity for data analytics to make enough sense of the responses to drive company action. The next step in adapting to a changing environment includes a keen examination of the products or services. Are they stale? Do they lack innovation and creativity? This could be a major driving force for change. Customers will often ask for what they want, and it will be obvious that competitors are listening if they assume the majority of the demand. The final step in adapting to change is the implementation in the workplace. As change is often extremely difficult to gain support, it is important that the right steps are taken to create a smooth transition for all involved.

Based on these steps, I would add internal engagement and cultural coaching as the next step. This is most present when looking inward to the business and conveying demand changes in a meaningful way to every level. When people see that they can make an impact, they will be the drivers for change and make the transition as smooth as possible.


Here is a video on Driving Cultural Change through User Adoption:

QUESTION 3 (Jessica Am)

Are the suggested principles an adequate foundation for an intrapreneurial-focused culture?

According to The Greenhouse Approach: Cultivating Intrapreneurship in Companies and Organizations (2019) the Seven Guiding Principles are a problem-solving methodology that incorporates harnessing judgment and creativity with the intrapreneur mindset (pg.73). While it incorporates the characteristics of an intrapreneur for success it is also about creating an environment where intrapreneurs can thrive by challenging the status quo, cultivating ideas, and having a natural ability to spot trends (pg. 18).

Must all organization departments adopt these principles as cultural norms?

All Speakers Agency (n.d.) provides trial exercises laid out by Chitra Anand that can be done within an organization to let an organization "get a feel" for adopting the intrapreneurship/ Greenhouse Approach. The simple exercise can boost engagement in employees while starting to build a culture of innovation. She believes organizations overcomplicate adapting the corporate culture of intrapreneurship and driving corporate innovation. All departments of an organization can benefit from adopting these principles as it creates a culture of the organization's success as a whole (para. 7).

Are operating silos a significant barrier to implementing the suggested principles?

According to The Greenhouse approach: Cultivating Intrapreneurship in Companies and Organizations (2019) silo thinking destroys the ideal of collective engagement and that people must work together in order to achieve the success of a company as a whole. It puts the people or project first rather than the organization and its goals. By working in silos (for whatever organizational rationale) there are negative aspects that are created from silo thinking that hinder the culture of the organization as a whole. Shifting from function-dependent to goal-dependent thinking can break down silos and make the organization a priority rather than the individual or the project (pg. 157).

Would you add anything to or remove anything from the suggested principles?

I believe from the information given the suggested principles are a methodology that I would be interested in exploring or experiencing in a real-life situation. Theoretically, they make logical sense and are a great starting road map for an organization to shift its culture and use the intrapreneurship mindset. As with the model, I would be open to experiencing adaptability in the model as the experience requires but think it is a great foundation and starting point for organizations to follow; ultimately making it their own adding or adapting as needed.

QUESTION 4 (Jake O’Connell)


The seven guiding principles are: relevance, creativity, speed, clarity, accountability, experimentation, and execution.

Are the suggested principles an adequate foundation for an intrapreneurial focused culture?

Yes, these principles are an adequate foundation to start from. That is not to say that they cannot be added to, but this is a good start for any organization to go off of.

Must all organization departments adopt these principles as cultural norms?

All organizations do not need to adopt these principles as cultural norms. While most all organizations would benefit from these principles, they can also have their own set of principles that would most likely be similar to these. If an organization has no principles, then they will not succeed at all.

Are operating silos a significant barrier to implementing the suggested principles?

“An operational silo is, by definition, any process, business unit, management style, management structure, or even employee who cannot (or Does not) interact with any other process, system or employee” (Saberton, 2018). Yes, operating silos would pose a barrier to these principles and any change that the organization goes through.

Would you add anything to or remove anything from the suggested principles?

There is always room for change to any set of principles as time goes on. What it is right now if any change is needed, I would say now. This is a good foundation to start on that covers all the basis for the most part. I would also say that nothing needs to be removed but only added to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *